alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,828,994
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    251,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,014,265
<PP&E>                                         40,647,779
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,570,629
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 49,480,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          20,039,433
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,500,000
<COMMON>                                       34,537
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   49,480,497
<SALES>                                        10,615,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,615,318
<CGS>                                          3,332,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,758,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,807,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,651,368)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,651,368)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,651,368)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.145
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.145
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Export-Import Bank

Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM).

# TIME AND DATE:

Thursday, February 28th, 2023, from 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE:

Virtual meeting—The meeting will be virtually for committee members, EXIM's Board of Directors and support staff, and virtually for all other participants.

# STATUS:

*Public Participation:*                         The meeting will be open to public participation and time will be allotted for questions or comments submitted online. Members of the public may also file written statements before or after the meeting to                         *external@exim.gov.*                         Interested parties may register below for the meeting:                         *https://events.teams.microsoft.com/​event/​59ec824f-c810-4797-894d-06344967c3dc@b953013c-c791-4d32-996f-518390854527.*

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Discussion of EXIM policies and programs to provide competitive financing to expand United States exports and comments for inclusion in EXIM's Report to the U.S. Congress on Global Export Credit Competition.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                         For further information, contact India Walker, External Enagagement Specialist, at 202-480-0062 or at                         *india.walker@exim.gov.*

Kalesha Malloy,

IT Specialist.

[FR Doc. 2024-02923 Filed 2-8-24; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
### Summary of RTR Impacts Tables Elaine Manning to: Higgins, Cortney 08/12/2010 10:16 AM

Cc: Jan Tierney, Ann Johnson, Stan Durkee, Sarah Mazur, Fred Talcott, George Woodall, Tim Benner, Mary Kissell, Paula Hirtz, Dave Guinnup, Ken Hustvedt, Ted Palma, Randy Mcdonald, Dave Salman, Steve Shedd, Phil Mulrine, Mark Morris



### KC asked that I send this to everyone for the call this afternoon at 1:30. It summarizes the many numbers for the source categories in the preamble. You will see differences in some of the numbers in the tables compared to some in the preamble.

Thanks, Elaine OAQPS, HEID, Sector Based Assessment Group (919) 541-5499

Summary

of RTR impacts 8 12 10.doc Summary

of RTR impacts 8 12 10.doc
EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of OnScreen Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB of the quarter ended June 30, 2004, I hereby certify
solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
     or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

OnScreen Technologies, Inc.


By: /s/ Mark R. Chandler                Dated this 16th day of August 2004
    -----------------------------
    Mark R. Chandler
    COO/CFO
DENY and Opinion Filed March 21 , 2022

In t he 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 21
- 01085
- CV IN RE PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP , Relator Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 21
- 14494 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Partida

- Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle Relator’s December 9, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus challenges the trial court’s order granting real party in int erest’s application to enforce the arbitration subpoena. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 1 35

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition, response, reply, and the record, we conclude that relator has failed to show its entitlement to the relief requested. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also lift the stay issued by our December 10, 2021 order.– 2

–

211085f.p05 /Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
#### William HENNING, Appellant, v. Hanna SCHNEIDER, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 13, 1955.

*242Alex Berman, Louisville, for appellant.

Norman A. Curtis, Louisville, for ap-pellee.

CAMMACK, Judge.

This action was instituted by William Henning against Hanna Schneider, the owner of the tenement house where Hen-ning resided, to recover damages for personal injuries received by him when he fell in the brick passageway leading from the tenement house to the street. The case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the appellee. This appeal followed. The appellant urges reversal on the grounds that the court erroneously gave an instruction on contributory negligence and the verdict is not sustained by the evidence.

. The appellant had resided at the tenement house' for five or six .weeks prior to the date of his injury. There were several families living in the building, all of whom had to use the passageway. The way was constructed of old brick and the evidence shows that one or two of the bricks were missing from a place in it. At the. time of his injury, the appellant was carrying a small radio along the passageway. After a short, conversation with another tenant the appellant proceeded along the passageway for a short distance, then stepped into the hole caused by the missing bricks. He fell, breaking his leg and injuring his head. The appellant testified that he had used the passageway an average of four times each day since he had resided at the tenement house. He testified also that he-had not noticed the hole in the passageway previous to the time he fell. The accident took place in the afternoon, about 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock, and the appellant himself' testified that there was sufficient light for' him to have, seen the hole if he had been' looking where he was walking.

..We think the evidence certainly created, at the most, an issue for the. jury, on the question of the appellant’s contributory neg-’ ligence. Constant use of' the ' passageway by the appellant imposed upon' him the duty of exercising due care for his own safety.Since he had used the passageway for five or. six weeks, he knew or should have known its condition. See Rodgers v. Stoller, 284 Ky. 108, 143 S.W.2d 1047, and Taustine’s Ex’r v. B. & B. Novelty Co., 30S Ky. 514, 204 S.W.2d 938. There was ample evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Dixie GRAHAM, Appellant, v. William Russell GRAHAM’S ADMINISTRATRIX (Louella Graham), Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 1, 1957.

Nichols & Nichols, Frederick E. Nichols, Madisonville, for appellant.

L. B. Weir, Madisonville, for appellee.

BIRD, Judge.

In this appeal we are called upon to resolve two questions: (1) Does an unrecorded chattel-mortgage lien have preference and priority over the preferred claim provided under KRS 396.090 for burial expenses in the settlement of an estate? (2) Does such unrecorded chattel-mortgage lien have preference and' priority over the widow’s exemption under KRS 391.030?

Both questions must be answered in the affirmative.

The first question is answered quite clearly in Milward v. Shields, 19 Ky.Law Rep. 1076, 43 S.W. 184, 39 L.R.A. 506 and later in International Harvester Co. v. Dyer’s Adm’r, 297 Ky. 55, 178 S.W.2d 966.

The second question is just as clearly answered in Blake v. Durrell, 103 Ky. 600, 45 S.W. 883, and also in the International Harvester case.

A distinction is sought to be made because the lien in the present case was not recorded until after the death of the intestate. So far as the record discloses appellant held a valid enforceable lien on the chattel involved at the time of intestate’s death although it was unrecorded. This Court in the Blake case, supra, 45 S.W. on page 884, said:

> “ * * * and the right of the widow to exemptions from distribution and sale is as unavailing against an attachment creditor as it would be against a mortgagee. The attachment lien upon the husband’s property can no more be disturbed by his death than it could be by his marriage and establishment as a housekeeper, had he been single at the date of the levy. *The status of the lienholder cannot he changed by the death of the debtor.*See Milward v. Shields, Ky., 43 S.W. 184, 39 L.R.A. 506.” (Emphasis ours)

The lien, therefore, was just as valid and enforceable after death as before, and if the lien constituted a claim that was prior to that of all others at the time of intestate’s death it maintained its status of priority after death even though it was still unrecorded.

The judgment must therefore be reversed. It will be noted however that we pass only on the questions of priority. *832Questions involving' validity and enforci-bility are not before us. The motion for appeal is sustained, and the judgment is reversed for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 40486 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Armando Serrato -**  **Medrano,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:22 - CR - 282 - 1

**__________ ____________________**  Before **Smith, Southwick,**  and **Douglas ,**  Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Armando Serrato - Medrano has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Serrato - Medrano has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record.

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 10, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40486 Document: 00516605419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2023No. 22 - 40486

2 We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-40486 Document: 00516605419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                         Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                                      1,065,855
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   2,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    0
<PP&E>                                                     19,321,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                             (4,810,314)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             15,644,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         380,037
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  6,704,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               15,644,667
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            2,671,741
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            2,052,218
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            787,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (167,778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0
        

</TABLE>
DENY and Opinion Filed May 20, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00077-CV IN RE DAVID S. GRANTHAM, Relator Original Proceeding from the 469th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 469-52594-2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Reichek Before the Court is relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus 1 in which he challenges the trial court’ s order denying relator’s speci al appearance plea to the jurisdiction. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Copart, Inc ., 619 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004 ) (orig. proceeding)).

1 Relator filed the petition as a motion for emer gency relief in cause number 05-21-01047-CV, a then pending appeal. Because the motion contained a statemen t of jurisdiction stating we had “jurisdiction over this mandamus proceeding” and clearly sought mandam us relief, we treated the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus and assigned it a new cause number.–2– “Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a comple te and adequate record.” In re Le , 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). Here, relator failed to meet his burden to supply this Court with an adequate record in support of his request for mandamus relief. Consequently, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8.

220077F.P05 /Amanda L. Reichek / AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE DANILO R OJEL-GOM EZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . Nos. 13-73231 Nos. 14-71489 Age n c y No. A098-006-777 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

April 7, 2015 * * B e fore : FISHER , TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. In the se c onsolida

te d pe t itions for re vie w, Jose Da nilo Roje l-Gom e z , a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igrat ion judge ’ s orde r a c knowle dging withdra

w a l of R oje l-Gom e z ’ s a

pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding



# F IL ED APR 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture , a nd gra nting his a pplic ation for volunta

ry de pa rture (No. 13-73231), a

n d the B IA’ s subse que nt orde r de ny ing his motion to re ope n (No. 14-71489). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions. C o lme nar v . IN S , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C ir. 2000). W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion the de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n. Singh v . Gonzale s , 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th C ir. 2005). The B IA did not de ny

R oje l-Gom e z ’ s due proc e ss in dism issing his a

ppe a l. Se eLarita-Martine

z v . IN S , 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th C ir. 2000) (no dueproc e ss viola tion whe re the re is no e rror); se ealso 8 C .F.R . § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(C ) (B IA m ay sum m arily dism iss whe re “ a

ppe a l is from

an orde r that gra

nte d the pa

rty c onc e rne d the re lie f that

ha d be e n re que ste d” ). Thus, we de ny the pe tition for re vie win No. 13-73231. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing R oje l-Gom e z ’ s m otion to re ope n whe re R oje l-Gom e z did not e sta blish thee vide n c e he subm i tte d wa s ne w. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(1); Bolshak ov v . IN S , 133 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th C ir.

1 3 - 7 3 2 3 1 /1 4 - 7 1 4 8 9 21998) (upholding a g e nc y ’ s de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n whe re pe titione r fa ile d to e sta blish e v ide n c e wa s “ ne w ” ). Thus, we de ny the pe tition for re vie win No. 14- 71489. PE T IT IO NS FO R

RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 3 2 3 1 /1 4 - 7 1 4 8 9

3
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. Dated this 7th day of August, 2009. /s/ Linda H. Simmons
Linda H. Simmons
Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. and will be retained by Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.  4
Exhibit 99.3
Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
of Zkid Network Company, (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge,  the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the Company for the period
ended March 31, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and  that
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the  financial  condition  and results of  operation  of the  Company.  A signed
original of this written statement  required by Section 906 has been provided to
the  registrant  and will be retained by it and furnished to the  Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated May 14, 2003.                                  /s/ Jon Darmstadter
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    Jon Darmstadter